Blog

  • ‘A dangerous precedent’: Critics slam Columbia’s agreement with Trump administration

    ‘A dangerous precedent’: Critics slam Columbia’s agreement with Trump administration

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Federal officials hope their agreement with Columbia University will be a “template for other universities around the country,” U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon said Thursday. 

    Her remarks, made in a NewsNation interview, come as some critics publicly worry that the deal will spur the Trump administration to put financial pressure on other universities. Columbia law professor David Pozen, for instance, wrote in a blog post Wednesday that “the agreement gives legal form to an extortion scheme.”

    Despite praise for the deal from some corners of the university, critics have also accused Columbia of capitulating to the Trump administration’s attacks on higher education.

    The Trump administration has withheld federal funding from a long list of colleges, often claiming they are not doing enough to address antisemitism or otherwise violating civil rights laws. Columbia became the face of those battles in March, when the Trump administration canceled $400 million of the New York institution’s federal grants and contracts. 

    Under the deal reached Wednesday, Columbia agreed to a litany of policy changes and concessions, including paying the federal government $221 million, to settle civil rights investigations and to have the “vast majority” of $400 million in federal grant funding reinstated, according to the university’s announcement.

    Along with having most of the money reinstated, “Columbia’s access to billions of dollars in current and future grants will be restored,” the university said in Wednesday’s announcement. 

    The deal ends the Trump administration’s probes into whether Columbia had failed to protect Jewish students from harassment and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s similar investigation into its treatment of employees. 

    The 22-page agreement is wide-ranging. Columbia agreed to provide the federal government with admissions data on both its accepted and rejected applicants, craft training “to socialize all students to campus norms and values,” and have an independent monitor oversee its compliance with the deal. It also said it would establish processes to ensure students are committed to “civil discourse, free inquiry, open debate, and the fundamental values of equality and respect.”

    Additionally, the university said it would decrease its financial dependence on international students — who make up roughly 40% of enrollment — and ask foreign applicants for their reasons “for wishing to study in the United States.” 

    And Columbia will codify measures it announced in March, which include banning masks meant to conceal one’s identity and having a senior vice provost review programming focusing on the Middle East, including the university’s Center for Palestine Studies; Institute for Israel and Jewish Studies; and Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies. 

    That leader, Miguel Urquiola, will review those and other programs — including their leadership and curriculum — to ensure they are “comprehensive and balanced,” according to the agreement. 

    Columbia also agreed to appoint an administrator to serve as a student liaison to address concerns about antisemitism. That administrator will make recommendations to top officials about how the university can support Jewish students. 

    ‘A dangerous precedent’

    Claire Shipman, Columbia’s acting president, suggested the deal doesn’t undermine the university’s autonomy. “It safeguards our independence, a critical condition for academic excellence and scholarly exploration, work that is vital to the public interest,” she said in a Wednesday statement. 

    Indeed, the agreement says it does not give the federal government control over the university’s employee hiring, admission decisions or academic speech. 

    However, critics have swiftly and vociferously denounced the deal, arguing that the university has yielded to an authoritarian administration and harmed the higher education sector at large.

    Source link

  • Wales can lead the way on student engagement – if it chooses to

    Wales can lead the way on student engagement – if it chooses to

    Imagine studying in a Wales where every student understands their rights and responsibilities.

    Where module feedback drives real change, where student representatives have time, resources and power to make a difference, and where complaints drive learning, not defensiveness.

    Where every student contributes to their community in some way – and where decisions can’t be made about students without students.

    When the Tertiary Education and Research (Wales) Act 2022 was being drafted, the inclusion of a mandatory Learner Engagement Code was important – Wales resolved to put into primary legislation what England had buried in the B Conditions and Scotland had largely left to institutional discretion.

    Section 125 now requires the Commission to prepare and publish a code about learner involvement in decision-making that’s not optional, or best practice – it’s law.

    This year the newly formed commission (MEDR) has been informally consulting on it – but it’s now been so long since the original debates that there’s a danger everyone helping to develop the thing will forget what it was supposed to do.

    Nobody will benefit from something that emerges as something weak or vague. The opportunity is for Wales to lead the way with some crunchy “comply or explain” provisions for universities in Wales that reflect the fact that this has been put in primary legislation.

    The cost of getting it wrong

    We know what happens when learner engagement is treated as an afterthought. In England, providers often silence critique on reputational grounds – the Office for Students’ (OfS) free speech guidance had to explicitly state that students have the right to publicly criticise their institutions. Imagine needing regulatory clarification that criticism is allowed in a democracy.

    Meanwhile, Scottish institutions celebrate their “partnership” approach while student representatives struggle to influence decisions that matter. Sparqs frameworks look good on paper, but without regulatory teeth, they rely on institutional goodwill. And goodwill, as any student rep will tell you, tends to evaporate when difficult decisions need making.

    When module evaluation becomes a tick-box exercise rather than genuine dialogue, problems fester. When student reps are excluded from decisions about their own education, drop-out rates climb. When complaints are buried rather than learned from, the same issues affect cohort after cohort.

    I’ve seen a lot of it over the years. The disabled student who gave up trying to get adjustments implemented because every lecturer claimed the central service’s plans were “merely advisory”. The international PGT student who couldn’t complain about teaching quality because they feared visa implications. The part-time student who couldn’t access support services because everything was designed around full-time, on-campus students.

    The student facing disciplinary proceedings who wasn’t allowed an advocate and faced a panel with no student members – in contrast to the support available to staff in similar situations.

    These aren’t edge cases – they’re systematic failures that a robust Code could prevent. Wales has a genuine opportunity to do something different – to create a Code with teeth that makes learner engagement mandatory, measurable and meaningful.

    Learning from what works

    The most effective student engagement systems require common features. They’re comprehensive, covering everything from module evaluation to strategic planning, and are backed by resources, ensuring student representatives aren’t expected to volunteer countless hours without support. And crucially, they have consequences when institutions fail to comply.

    The key is moving from “should” to “must”, with a comply or explain mechanism that has genuine bite.

    Here’s how it could work. The Code would set out clear standards – not aspirations but requirements. Providers would either have to comply with the standards or publicly explain why they’ve chosen an alternative approach that delivers equivalent or better outcomes.

    But – and this is crucial – explanations wouldn’t be allowed to be boilerplate excuses. They would need to be evidence-based, time-limited, and subject to scrutiny.

    The Commission would assess compliance annually, not through tick-box returns but through triangulated evidence – student surveys, complaint patterns, representation effectiveness metrics, and crucially, the views of student representatives themselves.

    Where providers persistently fail to meet standards without adequate justification, consequences would follow – from improvement notices to conditions on funding.

    There would be an expectation of an annually agreed student partnership agreement – setting out both processes and priority actions – and an expectation that students’ unions would produce an annual report on the experiences of students at that provider.

    This isn’t about micromanaging institutions – it’s about establishing minimum standards while allowing flexibility in how they’re met. A small FE provider might implement representation differently than a large university, but both must demonstrate their approach delivers genuine student voice in decision-making.

    Student rights and democratic education

    The Code should first establish that students are both consumers with enforceable rights and partners in their education. This dual recognition ends the sterile debate about whether students are one or the other. It means providers must respect consumer rights (quality, promises kept, redress) while creating genuine partnership structures.

    Knowing your rights matters. Following Poland’s model, all students should receive comprehensive training on their rights and responsibilities within 14 days of starting. That shouldn’t be an optional freshers’ week session – it should be mandatory education covering consumer rights, representation opportunities, complaints procedures, support services, and collective responsibilities.

    Crucially, the training should be developed and delivered by the SU. There should be written materials in (both) plain language(s), recorded sessions for those who can’t attend, annual refreshers, and staff trained to respect and uphold these rights. When every graduate understands both their rights and responsibilities, Wales will transform not just higher education but society.

    Protected status and academic adjustments

    Following Portugal’s model, student representatives should get protected status. That means academic adjustments for representative duties, just as providers must accommodate pregnancy or disability. No student should face the choice between failing their degree or fulfilling their democratic mandate.

    Representatives should get justified absences for all activities – not just formal meetings but preparation, consultation, and training. Assessments should be rescheduled without penalty, deadlines adjusted based on representative workload, and attendance requirements modified. Reps should get protection from any form of academic discrimination.

    The Finnish model adds another layer – ideally, student representatives in governance should receive academic credit or remuneration (or both). Learning through representation is learning – about negotiation, governance, and strategic thinking. They are skills that matter in any career.

    Module evaluation as universal engagement

    The Estonian approach shows what’s possible when feedback becomes embedded in academic culture. Making evaluation mandatory for module completion ensures universal participation. But it must be meaningful – published results, documented actions, closed feedback loops. Every student becomes a partner in quality enhancement, not just the engaged few.

    Wales should adopt Estonia’s three-part structure – teaching quality, student engagement, and learning outcomes. This recognises that educational success requires both good teaching and student effort. No more blaming students for poor outcomes while ignoring teaching failures, and no more student satisfaction surveys that ignore whether students are actually engaging with their learning.

    Results should be published within modules – not buried in committee papers but visible where students choose modules. Previous evaluation results, actions taken, ongoing improvements – all should be required to be transparent. Future students should be able to see what they’re signing up for, and current students should see their feedback matters.

    Comprehensive scope of engagement

    Sweden’s clarity is instructive – students must be represented “when decisions or preparations are made that have bearing on their courses or programmes or the situation of students.” There’s no weasel words about “where appropriate” or “when practicable” – if it affects students, students must be involved.

    In the Netherlands, where decisions are made by individuals, not committees, information must be provided and consultation must occur at least 14 days in advance. And written explanations should be required when student recommendations aren’t followed – because accountability matters in managerial decisions.

    Beyond academic structures, students should be represented on professional service boards, IT committees, estates planning groups, marketing focus groups. Decisions about campus facilities or digital systems affect students as much as curriculum design – yet these areas often lack any student voice.

    The digital environment deserves special attention. Student representatives should be involved in decisions about learning platforms, assessment systems and communication tools – not after implementation but during planning. Because digital accessibility and usability directly impact educational success.

    Consent not consultation

    Wales could be bold. Following the Dutch model, some decisions should require student consent, not just consultation. The Code could distinguish clearly between:

    Matters requiring consent (cannot proceed without student agreement):

    • Teaching and Assessment Regulations
    • Significant programme structure changes
    • Student charter content
    • Institutional policy frameworks affecting learners
    • Quality assurance procedures
    • Representation structure and changes
    • Elective module options for the following year

    Matters requiring consultation (mandatory input but not binding):

    • Budget allocations affecting student services
    • Campus development plans
    • Strategic planning
    • Staff appointments affecting students
    • Marketing and recruitment strategies

    Matters governed by a council of staff and students:

    • Student accommodation
    • Student employment
    • Student services and mental health
    • Harassment and sexual misconduct policy

    Matters delegated to the students’ union

    • Student engagement and representation
    • Student activities and volunteering

    This isn’t radical – it’s a recognition that students are genuine partners. No other stakeholder group would accept purely advisory input on regulations governing their activities. Why should students?

    From course reps to citizens

    Another area where Wales could be genuinely radical would take Wales’ vision of students as citizens by going beyond traditional representation structures – broadening “engagement” beyond academic quality.

    The European model of subject-level associations – common from Helsinki to Heidelberg – shows what’s possible. These aren’t just academic societies but genuine communities combining social activities, career development, representation, and civic engagement. They create belonging at the discipline level where students actually identify.

    In Tallinn, departmental student bodies aren’t sideshows but partners in departmental culture. They organise orientation, run mentoring, coordinate with employers, feed into curriculum development – and crucially, they’re funded and recognised as essential, not optional extras.

    In some countries there’s even a “duty of contribution” where students volunteer to help run the institution. Green officers, peer mentors, student ambassadors – multiple routes to engagement beyond traditional representation. Not everyone wants to be a course rep. But everyone can contribute something.

    Even if we’re just talking about student clubs and societies, Wales should mandate that providers support and fund these diverse engagement routes.

    Every student should serve somehow during their studies – it’s citizenship education in practice. Some will be traditional representatives, others will mentor new students, run sustainability initiatives, organise cultural events, support community engagement. All develop democratic skills. All should share responsibility for their community.

    Taking part

    Some countries maintain a tripartite principle for major bodies – equal representation of students, academic staff, and professional staff – to recognise that universities are communities, not hierarchies. Maybe that’s asking too much – but even with a minimum of two students in the room, representation means nothing without support.

    Some countries require that student reps receive all documentation at least five days in advance, training on context and background, briefings on complex issues, and support to participate fully – you can’t contribute if you don’t understand what’s being discussed.

    When new committees or working groups are established, there should be active consideration of student membership with default presumption of inclusion. Decisions and justifications should be communicated to student representatives, and there should be annual reviews of representation effectiveness with evidence-based changes.

    Some countries transform meetings from tokenistic to meaningful. Materials distributed five working days in advance means no ambushing student representatives with complex papers. Everything in accessible language, translated where needed, should be a standard too.

    The Swedish innovation of publishing all decisions and rationales builds accountability. Rather than being buried in minutes, decisions get actively communicated. Students can see what’s decided in their name and why – democracy requires transparency. And committees should pick up minimum student membership levels with voting rights, and there should never (ever) be just one student in a room.

    Funded independence

    Latvia mandates that SUs receive at least 0.5 per cent of institutional income, and minimums were agreed as part of the Australian Universities Accord. This isn’t generous – it’s the minimum needed for effective representation. The Welsh Code should set a minimum as a % of income, or fees – ensuring student bodies have resources to train representatives, gather evidence, and hold institutions accountable.

    Funding should come with independence safeguards. There should be no conditions that compromise advocacy, no reductions for challenging decisions, and protected status even when (especially when) relationships become difficult. Written agreements should protect core funding even during institutional financial difficulties.

    Beyond core funding, providers should be required to supply facilities, administrative support, IT access, and time for representatives. The split between guaranteed core funding for democratic functions and negotiated funding for service delivery would protect both representation and student services.

    Complaints as learning and conduct

    Complaints are a really important part of student engagement – and so the OIA’s Good Practice Framework, which learns from them, should be mandatory, not optional. A proper system treats complaints as valuable intelligence, not irritations to be managed.

    Wales should then go further, automatically converting failed appeals containing service complaints into formal complaints. When patterns emerge, compensation should go to all affected students, not just those who complained. And every provider should be required to publish on what it’s learned from complaints over the past year, and what it’s doing about it – with sign off from the SU.

    The Swedish model’s restrictions on disciplinary proceedings protect students from institutional overreach. Proceedings are only allowed for academic misconduct, disruption of teaching, disruption of operations and harassment. And students are given full procedural rights – including representation, disclosure and presence during evidence.

    Wales should go further. Every student facing disciplinary proceedings should have the right to independent support, and any panel should include student members who are properly trained and supported. Peer judgement matters in community standards.

    And neither disciplinary nor funding processes should ever be used to silence criticism, punish protest, retaliate for complaints or discourage collective action. The free speech protections in OfS’ guidance should be baseline – students’ right to criticise their institution is absolute, whether individually or collectively.

    Disability rights are student rights

    Every year, countless disabled students arrive with hope and ambition, only to find themselves trapped in a Kafkaesque system of “support” that demands disclosure, documentation, negotiation, repetition, and often – silence. If Wales is to lead, then it should be unflinching in acknowledging the daily indignities that disabled students face – and bold in tackling the systemic failures that allow them to persist.

    Adjustments, when granted, are inconsistently implemented, and advocacy, if it exists at all, is fractured and under-resourced. In many departments, reasonable adjustments are still treated as optional extras. Central services write the plans, but academic departments dispute their legitimacy, claiming subject expertise trumps legal obligation. Students are asked to justify, to prove, to persuade – again and again. And often in public – as if their access needs were a debate.

    Disabled students can’t be expected to fight these battles alone. Wales should require institutions to facilitate advocacy, embedded close to academic departments, co-located with SUs where possible, and independent enough to challenge unlawful behaviour when necessary. Not every rep can be an expert in disability law. But every student should have access to someone who is.

    The law is clear – providers have an anticipatory duty. That means planning ahead for the barriers Disabled students face, not waiting until they fall. But few providers conduct serious, evidence-based assessments of their disabled student population by type of impairment, by subject area, by mode of study. Without that, how can anyone claim to be meeting the duty? Wales could also set the tone nationally with a mandatory bank of questions in the NSS that probes access, implementation, and inclusion.

    Wales’ code should mandate that providers move beyond warm words to hard strategy – analysing disability data with student input, mapping gaps, and resourcing change. Every provider should be required to publish a Disability Access Strategy – co-designed with students, informed by evidence, and backed with budget. And implementation should be monitored – not through passive complaints, but active auditing. Where there are failures, there should be automatic remedies – and if patterns persist, the Commission must intervene.

    And briefing all students on disabled students’ rights would help too. If every student understood what disabled students are legally entitled to, fewer adjustments would be denied, more peers would offer solidarity, and institutions would face pressure from all sides to comply with the law. Education here is empowerment – for disabled and non-disabled students alike.

    Wales could lead

    If all of that feels like a lot, that’s because it is.

    But that’s why it was put in primary legislation – to show what’s possible when you take student engagement seriously, to create structures that outlast changes in institutional leadership or political climate, and to graduate citizens who understand democracy because they’ve practiced it.

    But most importantly, to lead:

    The Commission will ensure that Welsh PCET providers lead the UK in learner and student engagement and representation.

    Universities Wales isn’t so sure. In its response to the Regulatory System Consultation it said:

    We do have a number of concerns about regulatory over-reach that can be found in several of the pillars. For example, in the Learner Engagement pillar, the demand for investment of resources and support for learner engagement could be deemed to be a breach of institutional autonomy, particularly in light of this being married to ‘continuous improvement’ – if this ends up being a metric on which the sector is judged, it could be particularly contentious in tight financial circumstances.

    Good grief. It really isn’t a breach of institutional autonomy for students to expect that a little slice of their fees (whether paid by them or not) will be allocated to their active engagement and will be under their control. As Welsh Government put it during the passage of the Bill:

    There is already some excellent learner engagement within the sector, but the prize now is to ensure this is the norm across all types of provisions and for all learners.

    Welsh Government talks about civic mission, distinctive Welsh values, and education for citizenship – in universities, the Code is where rhetoric can meet reality.

    Fine words should become firm requirements, and partnership can stop being what institutions do to students and become what students and institutions do together.

    I know which Wales I’d rather study in. The question now is whether MEDR has the courage to mandate it.

    Source link

  • Live with former Rep. Justin Amash

    Live with former Rep. Justin Amash

    Throughout his career, former Congressman Justin Amash has been a strong advocate for freedom of speech, writing that “The value of free speech comes from encountering views that are unorthodox, uncommon, or unaccepted…Free speech is a barren concept if people are limited to expressing views already widely held.”

    In this special live episode, filmed in front of 200+ high schoolers attending FIRE’s Free Speech Forum at American University in Washington, D.C., Amash takes questions from the audience and discusses his upbringing, his political career, the state of American politics, and how the Constitution guided his work in Congress.

    Earlier this year, Congressman Amash joined FIRE’s Advisory Council.

    Timestamps:

    00:00 Intro

    03:30 Upbringing

    06:21 Law school

    13:15 Time in Congress

    15:59 Why Amash publicly explained each of his votes

    26:30 On being the first libertarian in Congress

    30:57 Connection between his principles and free speech

    33:10 Trump’s first impeachment

    42:48 Dealing with pushback from constituents

    46:03 Term limits for members of Congress?

    55:25 How high schoolers can pursue a career in politics

    59:45 Has there been a regression in First Amendment protections?

    01:07:32 What Amash is up to now

    01:08:06 Outro

    Enjoy listening to the podcast? Donate to FIRE today and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more. If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at thefire.org and would like access to Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email [email protected].

    Source link

  • Justin Amash | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression

    Justin Amash | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression

    Throughout his career, former Congressman Justin Amash
    has been a strong advocate for freedom of speech, writing that “The
    value of free speech comes from encountering views that are
    unorthodox, uncommon, or unaccepted…Free speech is a barren
    concept if people are limited to expressing views already widely
    held.”

    In this special live episode, filmed in front of 200+
    high schoolers attending FIRE’s Free Speech Forum at American
    University in Washington, D.C., Amash takes questions from the
    audience and discusses his upbringing, his political career, the
    state of American politics, and how the Constitution guided his
    work in Congress.

    Earlier this year, Congressman Amash
    joined     FIRE’s Advisory Council.

    Timestamps:

    00:00 Intro

    03:30 Upbringing

    06:21 Law school

    13:15 Time in Congress

    15:59 Why Amash publicly explained each of his
    votes

    26:30 On being the first libertarian in Congress

    30:57 Connection between his principles and free
    speech

    33:10 Trump’s first impeachment

    42:48 Dealing with pushback from constituents

    46:03 Term limits for members of Congress?

    55:25 How high schoolers can pursue a career in
    politics

    59:45 Has there been a regression in First Amendment
    protections?

    01:07:32 What Amash is up to now

    01:08:06 Outro

    Enjoy listening to the podcast? Donate to FIRE today and
    get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and
    more. If you became a FIRE Member
    through a donation to FIRE at thefire.org and would like access to
    Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email
    [email protected].

    Source link

  • Blursday Socials Are Reborn! First One on Tuesday, July 29th –

    Blursday Socials Are Reborn! First One on Tuesday, July 29th –

    You are here: Home / Ed Tech / Blursday Socials Are Reborn! First One on Tuesday, July 29th

    By .

    For folks who have missed Blursdays, they’re back and better than ever. The first one is coming up fast on Tuesday, July 29th at 11:30 AM – 12:30 PM ET.

    Here’s the deal: The Empirical Educator Project (EEP), now under 1EdTech, has been rebranded as 1EdTech Learning Impact Labs. This name change is important because, unlike EEP, 1EdTech can drive change right into the EdTech ecosystem. Accordingly, Blursdays have been renamed 1EdTech Learning Impact Labs Live (or LIL Live). Lots of old friends, some new ones, and a renewed focus on driving change. Our first guest is Unizin CEO Bart Pursel, who has two concrete, actionable proposals for us:

    • We know interleaving works as a teaching practice. The data are clear. Why don’t we create cross-platform interoperability standards that make it easy to implement the same interleaving methods across different LMSs, courseware systems, etc.?
    • We know that course design can significantly impact whether students change their majors. Why don’t we make it easy to analyze the impact of course designs on major changes?

    Bart has already presented these ideas to the 1EdTech community at our Learning Impact conference. Now I’ve asked him back to speak with…well…you. You can weigh in on what you need. You can help shape the 1EdTech community’s perspective on these topics. And you can still enjoy the old Blursday camaraderie.

    How to join

    We’ll be using Engageli. For those who haven’t been to a Blursday and haven’t used the platform before, Engageli is a virtual learning platform designed to foster active learning and engagement in live and asynchronous learning environments. You don’t need to pre-register for Learning Impact Labs Live; just click the link to access the classroom lobby on the scheduled day and time. Sign-up will take a minute or two, so please allow yourself time if you can. Here are the steps:

    • Input your email address and receive a verification code
    • Once you input the verification code, edit your learner name to your first and last name
    • Check your audio and video settings
    • Select Join classroom

    Please feel free to watch this quick video before our session to get a feel for Engageli classroom!



    Reader Interactions

    Source link

  • Union seeks delay in Education Department layoffs

    Union seeks delay in Education Department layoffs

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    U.S. Department of Education employees caught in the Trump administration’s reduction in force say they are being terminated against the terms of their bargaining agreement. The union representing them, American Federation of Government Employees Local 252, is seeking to delay the department’s termination date as a result. 

    It filed a grievance against the department on Wednesday, claiming the new Aug. 1 termination date only gives employees two weeks rather than the required 60-day notice. The department put in place the new termination date after a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision greenlighting the layoffs.

    On July 14, the Supreme Court allowed the department to move forward with a mass termination of over 1,000 employees originally announced in March. The department, in turn, notified employees that their new separation date was Aug. 1 rather than the previously announced date of June 9 — which got delayed due to the legal challenges. 

    The union claims, however, that the department must re-start its RIF process — which requires longer notice than two weeks and a briefing — since it walked back its March RIF due to blocks from the lower courts.

    During that time, the department sent RIF’d employees multiple emails over the course of a few months saying they were planning for the employees’ reentry into the office, the AFGE Local 252 grievance document says. “We are actively assessing how to reintegrate you back to the office in the most seamless way possible,” a June 6 email from the department told employees on administrative leave. 

    The Education Department, however, says its termination date set two weeks after the Supreme Court’s decision complies with the 60-day notice period required within the collective bargaining agreement. 

    “The CBA does not specify that the agency must provide 60 consecutive days’ notice,” said Madi Biedermann, deputy assistant secretary for communications, in an email to K-12 Dive. “ED is now providing affected employees with, in total, more than 60 days’ notice.” 

    The union’s grievance is the latest wrinkle in the Trump administration’s efforts to wind down the department, which have been met with resistance and criticism from former department employees, lawmakers and some public education advocates concerned about the agency’s effectiveness with only half of its staff remaining. 

    While these wrinkles unfold, the department has been spending $7 million in taxpayer dollars per month to pay workers on leave.

    That dollar amount is only for 833 of the 962 laid-off Education Department workers that the union represents and whom it was able to reach for its analysis. Thus, much more than $7 million is actually being spent per month to keep the more than 1,300 laid-off employees on payroll.

    Source link

  • Smile for the surveillance state

    Smile for the surveillance state

    Nora Mitchell is a rising 2L at Drexel University and a FIRE Summer Intern.

    On July 7, Barnard College settled a lawsuit from students who claimed the institution had failed to address student accounts of anti-Semitism on campus. In the settlement, Barnard agreed to establish a Title VI Coordinator position, sever communication with the student group Columbia University Apartheid Divest, and prohibit the use of face masks during campus protests — a move that is becoming increasingly popular across college campuses. 

    Mask bans are quickly becoming a new frontline in the nationwide battle over campus expression. Barnard’s agreement follows a controversial decision earlier this year in which Columbia University agreed to ban masks at protests, among other measures, in exchange for the release of $400 million in frozen federal funding. Columbia’s move came just days after President Donald Trump declared on Truth Social that he would end federal funding for any school that “allows illegal protests,” adding: “NO MASKS!”

    While some institutions like Columbia and Barnard impose strict rules prohibiting masks, policies at other colleges and universities allow face coverings to be worn unless students are violating law or school policy, or if officials ask for them to be removed. 

    For example, California State University’s time, place, and manner policy allows wearing masks on university property as long as students do not “attempt to hide or disguise their identity from the university official” when violating university policy. In Texas, the recently passed Senate Bill 2972 bans face coverings during protests at public colleges, undermining the state’s efforts to protect student speech rights back in 2019.  

    Placing a preemptive, blanket requirement on all protesters to identify themselves to college administrators — untethered to engaging in misconduct — risks discouraging students and faculty from speaking their minds. Instead of these speech-chilling bans, universities should limit their policies to seeking the identification of those who violate university policies or the law.

    From the Boston Tea Party to Occupy Wall Street, protesters have historically used face coverings to protect their identities from public violence, doxxing, and retaliation from employers and government officials. More recently, using masks to avoid identification has become associated with protesters advocating for Palestinian rights. Given the threats coming from school administrations and the U.S. government, activists may feel it necessary to take precautions to avoid revealing their identities and becoming targets for their expression.

    Sometimes people just want to be able to express themselves without concern for what their family, friends, the general public, or the government may think.

    So why are schools and local authorities putting so much effort into banning masks? The answer is control. When people have fewer protections, they face a higher risk of being penalized for their speech. That’s a risk that many are afraid to take.

    Legal and ethical backlash is building against mask bans

    Politicians claim mask bans are about stopping crime. But the real effect is to make dissent more costly and dangerous — especially when tied to hot-button issues like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

    Officials in Nassau County, New York, for example, signed a mask ban into law in August 2024 aimed at discouraging crime and anti-Semitic acts. According to CBS News, violating the law is considered a misdemeanor punishable by a year in jail or a $1,000 fine. Critics of the ban point out that, even with religious and health-related exemptions, the new policy gives authorities the power to question anyone wearing a mask — a power that can easily be abused. 

    So to Speak Podcast Transcript: ‘Shouting fire,’ deepfake laws, tenured professors, and mask bans

    The FIRE team discusses Tim Walz’s controversial comments on hate speech and “shouting fire in a crowded theater.” We also examine California’s AI deepfake laws, the punishment of tenured professors, and mask bans.


    Read More

    A lawsuit challenged the mask ban in Nassau County by contending that the law could lead to discrimination against individuals with disabilities. A judge dismissed the case a month later, ruling that the law included sufficient exemptions. However, even with health-related exemptions, there remains a risk of the law being used to silence protesters. In fact, among the first arrests made under the ordinance was an individual who was peacefully protesting while wearing a keffiyeh.  

    It’s no wonder there has been backlash from students and the public over these sweeping policies. In February, a student government representative at Columbia sent out a poll to students asking their opinions on campus security and the potential mask ban. The findings, published by the Columbia Spectator, showed that nearly three-quarters of respondents do not support mask bans.  

    Critics have been challenging the legal basis of anti-mask policies on and off campus, highlighting the possibility for discrimination and infringement on First Amendment rights. After all, masks can be used for a variety of purposes, from protecting one’s health to protesting anonymously to dressing up on Halloween. It shouldn’t be assumed that all mask-wearers intend to commit a crime. Sometimes people just want to be able to express themselves without concern for what their family, friends, the general public, or the government may think. Many uses of masks are inherently expressive. That means banning them raises constitutional concerns.

    What’s the legal precedent for mask bans on campus?

    The history of mask bans in the United States is complicated. The Supreme Court has never directly commented on whether banning masks during expressive activities infringes on First Amendment rights, and jurisdictions are split on the matter.

    In many states, mask bans gained popularity between the 1920s and 1950s in response to actions of the Ku Klux Klan. For example, in Church of the American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan v. Kerik, KKK members challenged a New York anti-mask law when the group’s parade permit was denied because of planned mask-wearing. Despite the group’s argument that the masks were a form of expression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the masks worn by KKK members added “no expressive force to the message portrayed by the rest of the outfit.” Since the robes and hoods that were part of their uniforms could easily communicate to others that they were part of the Klan, the court concluded the “expressive force of the mask is, therefore, redundant.” 

    Similarly, in State v. Miller, another case involving the KKK, the Supreme Court of Georgia upheld a state mask ban because “the statute distinguishe[d] appropriately between mask-wearing that is intimidating, threatening or violent and mask-wearing for benign purposes.”

    In contrast, in American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan v. City of Goshen, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana struck down the city’s mask ban, holding the “United States Constitution protects a group’s speakers the right to anonymity when past harassment makes it likely that disclosing the members would impact the group’s ability to pursue its collective efforts at advocacy.”

    Likewise, in Ghafari v. Municipal Court for San Francisco, California’s First Appellate District struck down the state’s mask law when it was used to arrest members of the Iranian Students’ Association who were peacefully protesting outside the Iranian Consulate in San Francisco. The students were covering their faces while protesting out of concern that the Iranian government would retaliate against them or their family members.

    If people aren’t allowed to use tools to protect their identities when speaking out, many voices will be silenced.

    While some states have deemed mask restrictions unconstitutional, others still have them in place. For example, the state of Virginia still has a law passed in the 1950s that prohibits wearing face masks in public spaces with a few exceptions for health and religious reasons. 

    Despite the conflicting case precedent, it is safe to say that any full mask ban with no exceptions is likely unconstitutional. This is for a variety of reasons: health concerns, religious protections, and the right to anonymous speech. 

    The history of constitutional protections for anonymous expression

    The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the right to engage in anonymous speech. In the 1960 case Talley v. California, civil rights activist Manuel Talley was arrested and fined after distributing handbills on a sidewalk in Los Angeles. The handbills called for the boycott of merchants who carried products from manufacturers who refused to extend equal employment opportunities to racial minorities. Though the handbills included the name of the organization Talley was representing, law enforcement officers found them to be in violation of a Los Angeles City ordinance banning the distribution of handbills without an author’s name. 

    The Supreme Court declared the ordinance was unconstitutional, holding that it was overbroad and not narrowly tailored to its suggested purpose of “identify[ing] those responsible for fraud, false advertising and libel.” In his opinion for the Court, Justice Hugo Black stated that “[a]nonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind,” highlighting the importance of these works in securing American independence.

    What to make of anti-mask laws and mask-required laws? — First Amendment News 429

    First Amendment News is a weekly blog and newsletter about free expression issues by Ronald K. L. Collins and is editorially independent from FIRE.


    Read More

    Thirty-five years later in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, the Supreme Court upheld protections for anonymous speech when a resident of Westerville, Ohio, was fined for distributing anonymous handbills in opposition to her local school district’s request for a tax levy. Overturning Ohio’s election law that prohibited the distribution of anonymous campaign literature, the Court held that First Amendment protection for anonymous speech extends to “core political speech.” In doing so, the Court acknowledged that anonymous speech serves “to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation — and their ideas from suppression — at the hand of an intolerant society.”

    Despite this precedent, higher courts haven’t really addressed the role that masks play in protecting speech in our modern world where phones and cameras are always watching. If courts want to preserve free expression, they should keep in mind the many threats that individuals face when speaking in public. If people aren’t allowed to use tools to protect their identities when speaking out, many voices will be silenced.

    What does this mean for college campuses?

    Since mask bans on college campuses are a newer issue, it’s unclear how courts may react. Still, we know a few things for sure. First, any public university policy must be viewpoint neutral and narrowly tailored toward achieving a specific and important government goal. Also,  anti-mask policies must include exceptions for individuals with disabilities or religious customs that involve wearing face coverings. 

    But narrow tailoring also means universities cannot ban mask-wearing in ways that unnecessarily burden protected activity, such as anonymous protest. It is not a crime to peacefully protest while wearing a mask to avoid retaliation, and a blanket prohibition that includes such activity would raise serious constitutional issues.

    That said, school can restrict masks in certain situations. For instance, schools can prohibit masks while committing crimes or violent acts, violating school rules, or engaging in unprotected speech. And if you’re breaking the law, law enforcement can absolutely ask for identification.

    Is dissent the real target?

    Protesting in today’s world is different than it was before. When we leave our homes, we enter a space that is always being watched — not just by individuals walking around with their phones, but also by security cameras and surveillance technology. These are serious things for modern protesters to consider, especially when having a video go viral can bring severe and disproportionate consequences, such as losing your scholarship, your job, or even your visa. In this way, mask bans empower both police and private actors to suppress dissent. 

    A lack of anonymity can also amplify the “chilling effect,” in which people self-censor out of concern that they will violate some type of law, regulation, or social norm. According to FIRE’s 2025 College Free Speech Rankings, the chilling effect can be a problem for students across the political spectrum, with 34% of very conservative students and 15% of very liberal students reporting that they self-censored “very” or “fairly” often. 

    Masks are one way of combating this problem. For example, a student who wishes to participate in a pro-life rally may be more comfortable doing so if they can wear a mask and avoid being judged or harassed by their peers. Similarly, students and faculty may feel more free to voice their concerns about their school administration if they are able to wear masks. In an interview for CNN, an anonymous Columbia student going by the name “Maria” told reporters that she would no longer be participating in protests on campus due to the new policies adopted by the university. She stated she is “staunchly aware of how militarized and surveilled [the] campus is now,” and is fearful of retaliation. With mask bans becoming increasingly popular, this will likely be a growing sentiment among students. 

    Masks are an important tool for dissent and expression, both on and off campus. Even if sometimes ineffective in the face of advanced technology, masks provide a last line of defense for individuals who want to peacefully engage in public expression, giving them a small but important sense of security and anonymity. With recent reports of students being arrested for merely engaging in protected speech on their campuses, it is more important than ever to defend the right to anonymous speech.

    Source link

  • Unfriending on Social Media with Author, Sarah Layden

    Unfriending on Social Media with Author, Sarah Layden

    When Sarah Layden shared her satire piece, ‘Unfriend Me Now’ on her LinkedIn profile, I reached out right away about her appearing on The Social Academic interview series. She wrote ‘Unfriend Me Now’ after reading research from Floyd, Matheny, Dinsmore, Custer, and Woo, “If You Disagree, Unfriend Me Now”: Exploring the Phenomenon of Invited Unfriending, published in American Journal of Applied Psychology.

    Bio

    Sarah Layden is the author of Imagine Your Life Like This, stories; Trip Through Your Wires, a novel; and The Story I Tell Myself About Myself, winner of the Sonder Press Chapbook Competition.

    Sarah Layden professional headshot
    Sarah Layden

    Her short fiction appears in Boston Review, Blackbird, McSweeney’s Internet Tendency, Best Microfiction 2020, and elsewhere. Her nonfiction writing appears in The Washington Post, Poets & Writers, Salon, The Millions, and River Teeth, and she is co-author with Bryan Furuness of The Invisible Art of Literary Editing.

    She is an Associate Professor of English at Indiana University Indianapolis.

    Source link

  • FIRE statement on Columbia University’s settlement with Trump administration

    FIRE statement on Columbia University’s settlement with Trump administration

    On July 24, 2025, Columbia University announced that it reached an agreement with the Trump administration to restore federal funding that was revoked over allegations of its handling of anti-Semitism on campus. As part of the deal, Columbia will pay a fine and change numerous campus policies related to campus protests, including restrictions on demonstrations and new disciplinary procedures.

    The following statement can be attributed to FIRE Legal Director Will Creeley.

    FIRE sounded the alarm months ago about the administration’s blatant disregard for federal law in its response to allegations of discrimination at Columbia. Yesterday’s agreement can’t be separated from the unlawful pressure campaign that produced it.

    The reforms themselves require Columbia students to commit to laudable values like free inquiry and open debate. But demanding students commit to vague goals like “equality and respect” leaves far too much room for abuse, just like the civility oaths, DEI statements, and other types of compelled speech FIRE has long opposed.

    Source link

  • PBLWorks Announces its 2025 Award Winners

    PBLWorks Announces its 2025 Award Winners

    Novato, CA – The Buck Institute for Education (dba PBLWorks), a national provider of professional development and curriculum for high-quality Project Based Learning (PBL), has announced the recipients of its 2025 PBL Champions and John Larmer “JL” Lifelong Learning Awards.

    The recipients were honored during the organization’s 2025 PBL World conference in Napa Valley, California.

    The 2025 PBL Champions

    The PBL Champions program recognizes an individual, a school, and a school district that have demonstrated a commitment to PBL; have done quality, lasting work; and have shown evidence of impact on students. The 2025 recipients are:

    • District PBL Champion: Lynn Public Schools in Lynn, Massachusetts

    This 16,000-student district is transforming teaching and learning through its implementation of PBL. In a little over a year, the team at Lynn established high-functioning district and school leadership teams and trained a cadre of educators who have designed more than 70 projects for students. The district has implemented PBL at all seven of its secondary schools with a goal of having all students participate in two or more high-quality PBL experiences per year by the end of the 2029-30 school year.

    • School PBL Champion: University Prep Academy (UPA) High School in Detroit, Michigan

    University Prep Schools (UPrep) stands among Detroit’s earliest and longest-running charter school networks. Known for its unwavering commitment to student success, UPrep (UPA) has proudly upheld its signature “90/90 promise”—ensuring that at least 90% of students graduate from high school and 90% of those graduates go on to enroll in college. UPA teachers and leaders have leveraged PBL as a way that empowers students to be a part of the future of their city – from working on keeping their unhoused population warm in the winter through a physics project on heat transfer, to urban gardens that allowed students to provide farm-to-table food to local food pantries and shelters. PBL has opened their eyes to the challenges students face, encouraged them to see and explore those challenges through the lens of solutionists, and has brought UPA closer to the community it serves.

    • Individual PBL Champion: Kim Mishkin, Head of School at the Hudson Lab School (HLS) in Hastings, New York

    Kim Mishkin has been instrumental in embedding Project Based Learning as the foundation of the school’s curriculum. As both an educator and school leader, she has built structures, cultivated partnerships, and championed interdisciplinary, real-world learning experiences that empower students and educators alike. Through her leadership, HLS has become a model for how schools can integrate PBL at every level, ensuring that learning is not just about content, it is about empowering students to be problem-solvers, leaders, and changemakers.

    The John Larmer “JL” Lifelong Learning Award

    The John Larmer “JL” Lifelong Learning Award, named after PBLWorks’ Senior Fellow John “JL” Larmer, recognizes educators who are impacting and expanding the work of Project Based Learning. A significant advocate and thought leader in the field, JL has dedicated decades to advancing high-quality PBL and is the author of several foundational books that have shaped how educators design and facilitate high-quality PBL. This award celebrates those who carry forward that legacy with passion, purpose, and an unwavering commitment to deeper learning. The 2025 recipients are:

    • Rue Graham, Project Based Learning lead advisor and coach at the Pagosa Peak Open School, Archuleta County School District in Pagosa Springs, Colorado
    • Stephanie Tuttle, fourth grade teacher at Fairfield Elementary School, Rockbridge County Public Schools in Rockbridge, Virginia

    “Project Based Learning is an incredibly powerful way to engage students and ignite their passion for learning – and it all starts with having administrators and teachers who are committed to its success,” said PBLWorks CEO Bob Lenz. “Our awards programs recognize the incredible passion and hard work demonstrated by schools, districts, and individuals in implementing PBL. Congratulations to our 2025 award recipients!”

    About PBLWorks

    The Buck Institute for Education/ PBLWorks believes that all students, especially Black and Brown students, should have access to high-quality Project Based Learning to deepen their learning and achieve success in college, career, and life. Its focus is on building the capacity of teachers to design and facilitate high-quality Project Based Learning, and on supporting school and system leaders in creating the conditions for these teachers to succeed with all students.

    eSchool News Staff
    Latest posts by eSchool News Staff (see all)

    Source link